The Bitcoin Group, the American original. For over the last 10 seconds, the sharpest Satoshi's, the best Bitcoin's, the hardest cryptocurrency talk. We'd like to welcome our panelists, Gabriel D. Vine from Future Rent. Welcome to the Bitcoin Group. Thank you for having me. Hello Internet, hello, Posteratine. I'm Dean Martino from Coin Journal. So thanks for having tone bays from Liberty Life Trail. Hey everyone, coming to you live from Moscow, Russia. I think it's like 2 a.m. here. And as usual when I'm abroad Friday night, we're getting into my party time, but it's below freezing and snowing so I'm happy to be indoors. That sounds awful. But I'm Thomas Hunt with the World Crypto Network, moving on to issue one. Issue one, Donald Trump elected president. Before the election, Bitcoin traders believe that a Trump win could trigger a Bitcoin price boost. On the evening of the election, the Bitcoin price did surge to around $730 before dropping down to the 715 range. SCNBC said Bitcoin, gold and other safe haven currencies were boosted by demand after the Trump victory. And finally, Ian D. Martino's article in Coin Journal, what President Trump means for Bitcoin? So I'll just go ahead and ask you, Gabriel D. Vine is President Trump good for Bitcoin? I'm going to say yes. I don't believe it's possible for really any government action to be bad for Bitcoin. As an anti-fragile technology, hierarchical institutions, available range of actions is insufficient to do anything but temporary damage or temporary setbacks to a technology like Bitcoin or the internet or any other distributed decentralized type of technology. So as such, a Clinton win or a Trump win, they're both going to be great for Bitcoin. In different ways, Trump, I think the main advantage that everyone seems to, in my opinion, correctly be diagnosing is the uncertainty. He's not a politician in the traditional sense. So people's knowledge of his policy stance is far more limited, possibly than any previous president ever. And that uncertainty is what caused the market surge in Bitcoin and gold during the election when it dawned on all these clueless people that he was going to win when it was, in my opinion, so obvious to see. But you also sell off on the Dow and fears futures market up in the normal traditional financial market. There was a surge in risk off assets and a collapse or the super sell, a quick sell-off in traditional assets. And then we've seen a rebound. And I think that that has to do with, at least partially on the emotional level, traders, speculators reacting to the fact that the election was resolved right away. It was not a contentious result on a literal level, at an emotional level, with the mainstream media reporting that Clinton won the popular vote and such, causes a lot of emotional distress and confusion. However, on a basic level, on a political level, and on a market level for information gathering and algoes, market algorithms, they're relieved that there is some sort of way forward and people know what's going on again. However, I do believe that we're going to see crazy turmoil and volatility moving forward, ups and downs, as nobody's sure what Trump presidency is going to mean for the world economy in general. And in the traditional financial markets, people had predicted a downturn if Trump was elected not necessarily because of his policy, just because of the uncertainty. He truly is an outsider. We don't have any political record of what he's going to do. He hasn't been a governor or a senator. We just don't know. And that uncertainty affects the markets. E.N.D. Martino, your thoughts on the Trump victory in Bitcoin? Thank you, you're muted. Well, Ian's figuring out his mic. I will say that I am still coming to terms with the fact that so many people believed the mainstream media is narrative about Clinton win and the prediction markets, even the traders were fooled by the mainstream media. It's truly shocking to me. And I suppose that's, I'm part of new media. This group is a perfect example of coverage of current events that is not supported by CIA operatives and such that are at the banking conglomerates and everything that back the mainstream media. But it's really shocking to me that so many people still believe those narratives that are being pushed on us. And I'm still coming to terms with the fact that anybody surprised, the fact that traders had Trump at only 18 or 22 percent in the morning of the election day. I mean, come on, people wake up. It wasn't just a belief in Hillary Clinton's victory. I think it was also a fear of Trump that people, they really, they don't know him. And we really don't right now. It's an uncertain period. But they had this dislike of Trump. They desperately wanted Hillary to get through and they were kind of latching on to any optimistic thing they see. So now if we step back and we see this in the context of Brexit, this is the American Brexit and that people are upset. And unfortunately, the Democrats did have a candidate that could have fed to the upset people. His name was Bernie Sanders. And as we see from the DNC emails, they chose not to run him. And everyone is pretty much tying the election up right there. But Ian, let's go back to the issue and let's talk about Bitcoin. So what have you got? I still have audio issues in it. I thought we had you a second ago. I just want to broaden my point very quickly, which is I long ago lost faith in governments in general and how our democracy quote unquote democracy functions. And so it's the general faith in the electoral process, the general faith in government's ability to do anything at all that has not eroded to the point where people expect shocks and failures from that institution. And so that's what's a little bit surprising to me is that so few people have woken up to that truth in what I consider to be a truth. So and I think we're going to see that very quickly over the next couple three years. All right, let's try Ian one more time. Ian, microphone, any luck? Doesn't seem like it. Is it plugged in turned on the mode switch? We were talking to you before. I will keep this open. Just make some noise and we'll go to you. But currently it doesn't seem like so we can try popping in and out. We're going to go to tone vase. Tone vase, go ahead. What do you think of Trump in the election? I knew you were predicting Trump kind of in favor of Trump. I'd say a little bit, let's say. It was. I mean, I was hoping he would win. And I kind of I expect him to win videos on market analysis. I was kind of pushing for Trump. I kept warning people watch for a surprise win by Trump. He had dropped in the markets. But I also said it was going to be very, very temporary because it was just going to be a scare tactic. When Trump started to pull clothes, the markets rallyed for the election when Hillary wasn't going to get arrested by the FBI. But then when Trump wins, which, hey, for the first time in my life at least, it looks like the electoral college finally worked out. I was always like, I never really liked it before. If the media reports are true, which I don't believe, I don't believe Hillary won the popular vote. I find that really hard to believe because 3% of registered voters came out to vote, which is a new historical record like up this. And mouth was basically because of Trump. So I find it kind of hard to believe that she won the popular vote. And even if she did, the mere fact that Trump percent of the registered public to come out and vote is pretty damn impressive. Okay, so what does that mean for Bitcoin? So of course, everyone jumps to conclusion. By the way, Thomas, in your description, how you quoted one of the articles just from two days ago. I mean, the election was two days ago. And it said, oh, gold was up, what, 1.2.4% or something. It was like, you know, we're gold is right now. No, I don't. Where's gold right now? 10% in the last two days. 10% up or down. Sorry. Down. That's it. That's gold. It's unexpected. Gold was down $44 today at one point, just today. Okay. Okay, ounce of gold. In the Trump economy, I mean, it's day three of his president-elect period seems a little early. No, it's basically though, it kind of like the way markets work. It was the obvious trade that wasn't so obvious. And look, Trump is good for markets. Trump is amazing for markets. I mean, it's a Reagan. The Reagan administration had the stock market go up like 500% or something like that. I fully expect the stock market to rally. I mean, now that the Trump has the Republican House and the Republican Senate, I mean, he might be able to pull off that 15 or 20% corporate tax rate. And that's going to be huge. That's going to cause amazing profits for big companies. And that's good. That will help drive the economy. Try to think what else am I going to disagree with? Can I be going to be disagree with a lot of people? You guys hear me? All right. Looks like you got Ian. Go ahead. Yeah, you guys going to hear me this time now? Yeah. We do. I'll give you a couple things to disagree with, too, to him. But yeah, the uncertainty with Trump is probably definitely good for Bitcoin. What I think has more potential is his anti-regulation stance. He talked about getting rid of the Frank Dodd Act. He would drop a lot of know your customer laws. Bitfinex got fine $75,000 for allowing future leverage trading on their site to US customers, which I guess is illegal if you don't fill out the proper paperwork. The problem with that is we don't really know how serious he is about dropping the Frank Dodd Act and what he'd replace it with or if he's just going to let the banks run wild and do whatever they want, which would make it easier for companies on on ramps to get to Bitcoin less anti-money laundering laws and stuff. But at the same time, you get rid of all the bank regulation. They do what they tend to do, which is use that freedom to make risky bets that end up screwing themselves out and obscuring themselves over. They have a Trump administration who probably won't give them a bailout. Then we could see some major chaos in the financial markets, which would definitely be good for Bitcoin. Now, to be... The doctrine of Bitcoin would have to be canceled by Congress. It's not an executive action. Some of the 30s, 20s, said so far is he's going to roll back all the Obama executive actions. So a lot of things about immigration, climate change, some of those things. Obama just signed those. Trump's going to unsign them. But this one, he'd actually have to go through Congress and officially repeal it, right? Yeah, I would think so. But he's got the bully pulpit and Republicans controlling both houses of Congress. We don't know how willing those Republicans are going to go to go with Trumpism or if they're going to try to keep the Congress more traditional Republican. That's just one of the many things we're just going to have to wait and see. Some of them definitely have potentials. They've got the tremendous power because of Trump. They owe him now. We're going to see some of that. But there is a lot of argument saying that Trump is not a traditional Republican. So let's not be so quick to say he has both houses. I agree. The Republican party has those houses, but it's a fractured split as well. Yeah, but it's still better. Let me ask you a question. This is where I'm going to significantly disagree with you. So you're saying that the elimination of Dodd-Frank and having better on ramps for Bitcoin, articles you said, if Trump is going to crack down, Trump might crack down on remittance or make remittance easier. You're saying to Mexico, see, you're saying that those things are good for Bitcoin and bad for Bitcoin. I don't think I really talk too much about remittance. Let me check my article. You mentioned it not article of yours. You're saying it will make an on-ramp easier to do remittance. Like Bitcoin remittance companies will have an easier time connecting to bank accounts. Right. Well, yeah. I mean, so I think... The maintenance market is huge. Bitcoin can just grab a small part of it. It would be multiple times larger than all of Bitcoin. But here is my view. Having a better on-ramp system for Bitcoin, I don't think it's that good for Bitcoin. If Trump goes in and eliminates a lot of the regulation, I mean, regulation is why Bitcoin exists. Again, I'm here in Russia where Bitcoin is technically legal. And if you look at the charts of what do you call it? When you buy a Fakash, what's the main website to buy Bitcoin? Local Bitcoin? Local Bitcoin. Thank you. If you look at the chart of local Bitcoins, it's blowing up in Russia, the place where it's like most illegal, supposedly, right? So relaxing regulation is not that good for Bitcoin. I think Hillary would have been slightly better for Bitcoin. I mean, her raising taxes through the roof would create a huge use case for Bitcoin to hide your money from the government. But that's going to be kind of eliminated with Trump. I'm not sure what Trump's view on drugs are, right? I think he's a little hardcore anti-drugs. So that would be very good for Bitcoin. One would think as a businessman, he'd want the taxes from drugs. He'd want the income. It's another market, especially with the equalization in four states. He said that he's pro-medical marijuana. He wants to be cautious with common legalization. But I wouldn't call him quite a drug warrior or anything. Well, and remember, this is a complex individual. He used to be a Democrat. He used to have much more inline views with myself. He has shifted. We have to see where he's going to end up on every issue. It's very difficult to track and tell what he really goes. I think Trump's going to be open-minded. So if he's not hardcore anti-drugs, that's also not that great for Bitcoin. Legalizing drugs will literally destroy the Bitcoin price. Because that's a huge use case for Bitcoin. People would love to use their credit card to buy their drugs. They just can't. That would go away. I know Trump is against abortion. That's why I assume he would be anti-drugs. People seem to be on similar size of those issues. But he's not a feminist like Hillary. Hillary would be hardcore. She'll never legalize prostitution. She'd never even consider it. Again, as a feminist, the last thing she would want is her husband gambling. So forget about legalization of gambling. These are the kinds of things that are good for Bitcoin. The fact that these things are not going to get legalized. But again, Trump can't really do anything. It's still going to go through Congress. But my view is the more lenient Trump is with the gray markets and wanting to collect tax revenue for Bitcoin fundamentally to maintain the circular economy that it currently has. Now the fear trade only lasted about 24 hours. So that reality set in quickly because of Brexit. And people realize that all that panic was stupid. I still say Britain will not do a Brexit unless the euro collapses first. And still kind of down. But I think the currency will rebound as well. Can I get back in here? Go ahead. I'll get back in here. Well, the thing with what he said about regulation, I mean, that really depends on what we want Bitcoin to be. Do we want it to be this just weird digital currency that drug buyers, which, you know, pro drug, don't get me wrong. But that just like computer geeks and drug buyers user, we want it to become the primary payment system around the world and become a crypto revolution that the entire world gets to enjoy and reap the benefits of. If we want that, then we need to get some mainstream adoption. We need some on ramps to make it easier for the average person to use. I mean, I wrote a book about how to use Bitcoin. And when someone asked me like, how do I get started with Bitcoin? It's still like a, I got to sit there and think. I got to figure out exactly what they know about the internet and what they, their computer can handle. And should I tell them and just go to a little web exchange or should I tell them to try to download Bitcoin core and go through that whole process? If we want it to become more than just this little niche thing that computer geeks use, then we need some on ramps for the people to be able to get their money into Bitcoin. The more people we have buying Bitcoin, ultimately, the higher the price will go. Now, I would say to more of any drug market that we have online. I would say to remember, Andrew, it's his argument that maybe Bitcoin's not for the US. We have other countries that have more pressing currency needs. Whereas our currency, our credit system is pretty solid here. Bitcoin is kind of a hobbyist tool here. It's not necessarily a survival method like it might be in other countries. We might just have to wait. I think what's important here is that we have a safe environment, essentially, to code Bitcoin. I think we're going to code Bitcoin in the US. We're going to use it in the world. And what we need is reasonable laws here that the companies can work with and not a crack down, not a negative. Can I talk real quick? Dangerous side of the Trump presidency for Bitcoin. He's never been really in favor of privacy on the Internet. During the Republican primaries, he said he wants to bring back the Patriot Act. He says when it comes between privacy and security, he would err on the side of security. And you combine that with the fact that he doesn't quite understand how technology or the Internet works. He thinks he can call Bill Gates and have him shut down parts of the Internet to stop funding from ISIS. What's going to happen when Bill comes to his desk and they tell him, hey, Mr. President, there's this weird digital currency that people are using to send money to the ISIS. And here already doesn't understand how the Internet works. How does it get on the Bitcoin work? That's where we get some really dangerous and scary and misdirected legislation. And pointing towards Bitcoin. And to Gabe's point, I don't think that would destroy Bitcoin. I don't think it will be the end all be all. But it could really slow us down and it could slow down adoption. And a lot of people could get hurt in the meantime, you know, with some, if he passes some weird legislations that makes, you know, using Bitcoin illegal or just really restrictive. Yeah. But on the flip side of that, again, I'm going to play devil Zavik and I'll take the other side. I mean, we have 700 old coins and like 99.9% of them are scams. And you have these people are out there like, I would love for Dan Larimer to go away. I would love for the talent to go away. You know, Zoukou has been doing like Z cash is insane, right? So look, if he declares this, then all these people just go away. They're not going to be out there nonsense. So in a way, it wouldn't be too bad because Bitcoin will go away. They just go to a different country though. Well, they can go anywhere, but they can't be public people anymore, right? A lot of them are American citizens. They're going to have to launch their coins anonymous, like Satoshi didn't. Then they have no chance. Then why these old coins even have relevance is because the people that are creating them, like, want to be stars and they're able to pitch them and sell them and they profit from that, right? So all that goes away if they are now in danger of going to prison for launching this nonsense, right? Why do you think regulations are going to stop all? We've been regulations won't stop Bitcoin. I mean, it wants people to go to release all coins if they want. They can release from different country or find someone in different country to be the face of it. They can't be the face of it at that point, right? Especially if you have a US passport. That's the problem, right? You drop the fail. I think with a faceless team, it's harder to sell. It's harder to make it into a big thing. You can't have Zuko's triangle or any kind of papers or citations. But I think you can get someone in different country. I think Mimbo Wimbo. There's this new Bitcoin alternative, some kind of anonymous thing and it's being written by Lord Voldemort and all the other programmers on the project have Harry Potter aliases. I'm hearing good things about it. I really am hearing it. Who knows what's going to happen. What do you think, Tim? No, it sounds... That might actually sound reasonable. Look, you rarely get scammed by anonymous people. It usually gets scammed by people you trust. Say people that you actually... Well, tell that to people about crypto, no? I don't know about that. Also, I want to open this up to the chat. We're watching the chat and I'm going to scroll through and try to find some questions. I know there's a couple minutes of delay. So if you guys want to put your questions or just your statements for the kind of the debate, one of the things I saw on the chat that I found interesting is, do we expect to see a reopening of the 9-11 investigation? This isn't Bitcoin related, but personally, I would love to see a reopening of the investigation, but I don't think we're going to see it. Let's go down a line. No, I don't think Trump wants to open up that can of worms. I don't think he wants to go there. Now, I fully expect the irony of all ironies would be if the Clinton's, if Ford Trump's inauguration's over the next few months, just get together, take whatever money they can scrape together, then run away to Russia and seek asylum like Snowden. Because I think he will go after the Clinton Foundation. They're all in danger. I don't see him going after 9-11. One of the reasons is because it happened on the Republican watch and he does need those Republicans on his side now that they're in a house in the Senate. He will come, I can see him going after the Justice Department. I can see the FBI director calling me getting in a lot of trouble for being a whim with the Democrats. What do you call them? Everyone at the top of the Justice Department might see themselves in serious legal action, including Lynch, she's the Attorney General. It is definitely doing some criminal shit lately. Yeah, coming into this idea of the 9-11, just in general, these type of scandals and secrets and what you might call conspiracies as opposed to conspiracy theories. In other words, secret plans by groups of people in order to seize power, in order to harm certain people in order to create the situation where power can be grabbed. This is something that's been going on for the entirety of human history. However, unfortunately for conspiracists, they began to use instead of a piece of parchment with sealed wax on it or individual physical messengers passing notes to people that are burnt afterward, things like that. We're seeing email and such being used and basically people over about 50 or 60 that have not been involved directly in IT are very ignorant about the security risks of these communication methods. Therefore, we have entered into the age of leaks. But since Snowden, we only reached one big step up and we've been at this Snowden level for three years. In my opinion, we will be rapidly ascending to the next level of the leak age and that is going to involve 9-11 documents. I strongly believe that WikiLeaks or some other organization will be releasing some federal reserve documents that will prove evil intent, intent to steal money from people to fund terrorist operations. WikiLeaks, like you know, further leaks from the DNC, which we've already seen has actually had put the Democratic Party on its knees because of the straight up fraud that's been revealed. We're going to see like Ton said, you know, information about the Department of Justice and the FBI and Congress members. So we're going to see all these leaks of public figures. We're going to see in my opinion murders, more quote unquote murder suicides, which is not the term where somebody kills people around them and kills themselves. It's where somebody is suicide did. In other words, murdered with a thin cover-up story, just like it happened a lot in 2014-15 with the banker slew dozens of banker suicides and people that happened, you know, mid-level managers and stuff that happened to be privy to large-scale fraud. So I think we're going to see this leak situation really ratchet up even more. If you think it's bad now, it's going to be so much more intense. Okay, I want to follow up on this leak situation. Do you think that Trump will pardon Snowden and then Ton, you can go and talk to him? It doesn't sound like it. No, on Twitter. On Twitter he seemed open to it, but again, this was before and it's a tweet. Yeah. So Gabe, yes or no, just kind of quick, Snowden. I'm going to say no. He doesn't have the balls. Ian? No, I- I'm also going to say no, but, you know, obviously I hope so. I hope so as well. I hope so. I'm going to say I think he has the balls, but I don't think he will because like what was said earlier, if Trump really believes in security of a privacy, then he doesn't agree with Snowden because if he chooses security of a privacy, then he will believe that what Snowden did was criminal. It doesn't sound like he will maybe towards the end of his presidency when he doesn't have to get reelected. So maybe towards the end. So we'll see. As a, at the end of his first term, if he thinks that, you know, that's the popular opinion that would help him stick around. I don't, I'm going to push back on the assisted suicide stuff or the, that was more the Democrats and Clinton. People seem to be dying around her, throughout her travels through the political sphere, but I don't see that with Trump. And I'm not saying I'm not saying it will derive from Trump. In fact, I'm saying that will derive from, you know, other, other areas. This is not something that will come out of Trump, partisan, and I'm talking about just separately. I don't, I don't think that's a Republican Democrat thing either. I think that's more of a shadow government CIA type. Exactly. Exactly. Yeah. Yeah. Trump is against war. So that's good. That may or may not be good for Bitcoin. I mean, we'll see. But that's good for, you know, peace in the world. So I hope so. Part of my fear about Trump is that he really is a negotiator. And I don't believe that he truly has any hard and fast opinions. I believe he'll come into the conversation and say, I'm 100% for this because he's negotiating. And then he'll come back to 50 and 20 and he'll be like, okay, I can do it with half of this. And it was all a negotiation. And we're like, oh, and I hope, I mean, it's kind of absurd. But I hope that anti-Muslim comments. I hope a lot of his comments may have just been this negotiating tact. But that's really what we're waiting to see now. Does he back things up? What's his real priority when it comes down to it? Well, I think you can speak. I'll go ahead. You're going to go ahead, Ian. Well, I think you can kind of get some hints of what he might be planning on doing by looking at his cabinet positions and his transition team. You know, this is an idea I'm sort of stealing from the podcaster Dan Carlin. But when Obama got elected, you kind of saw he started filling in, you know, he's the hope and change can and all this stuff. But he started filling in his transition team and started pointing cabinet members. What was he? You're still with us? Well, lost in. Your mic dropped out again. All right. So just to follow up with what the chat saying, have we seen the main streaming of Alex Jones? Alex Jones just for some background, kind of a conspiracy theorist, very loud text and gentleman speaks on the internet a lot of yelling. I mean, I was a pretty big fan early on now. He was very much behind Trump. He's very much in favor of Trump. I think Trump might have went on a show. Maybe there's some back and forth there is Alex Jones mainstream now. Let's start with tone and we'll go through. I don't know. I don't think so. I really should watch a little more Alex Jones. I just don't have the time. It's tough. I mean, it's also a lot of the things he says I agree with. I mean, I think I have to feel reserved, but he has such a Rush Limbaugh kind of style to him. And I think it's kind of accelerated. He's become more of a style person and less of a substance person. Yeah, I couldn't get into the show. I mean, a lot of a stuff does sound very conspiratorial. But he's also broken a lot of stories. I mean, he's done a lot of good for journalism. Right? I mean, some of these stuff is out there, but I give him a pass on that. pass on that because he doesn't break a lot of good stories and gets to some of their facts. Because a lot of that stuff is true. But back to 9-11, look, the truth is going to come out. The documents will be leaked or either they'll be declassified. We will know what's going to happen. I'm just saying that Trump is not going to go there because he doesn't have anything to gain. If Trump exposes 9-11, he's going to have major civil unrest on his hands. It's going to be like the Lithuania sinking where we know like 70 years later that it was all, you know, bullshit or like the Tomkin incident that started Vietnam War. Like we find out about these things when the people that are most upset are no longer willing to fight about it, right? So that's when we're going to find out about 9-11. But he will go after especially the corrupt Democrats and rightfully so. And I hope he does. Well, and I think the important thing to do here is to separate Trump, the hero from Trump, the actual person. Trump, the hero, may go after 9-11 is probably the dream people are having. But in actual reality, he has a nuts and bolts kind of agenda. He has a limited set of options. Time is limited. We're going to have to see how he chooses to spend that. All right. All so, I mean, it's a tough battle. Yeah, we can hear you. It's a tough battle. Well, that kind of gets to what I was saying. Go ahead, John. I'll make one last point. It's a tough battle. You really, like if you're Trump and you want to go after, you've got to go after like specific people that you know are corrupt and you can prove that they're corrupt. Going after 9-11, who are you going to go after? You're going to try and go after Bush. You're going to try and go after Cheney. Again, those are going to be very, very difficult things to prove. Everything is going to be very circumstantial. Going after the Clinton's and the Clinton foundation and the conflict of interest in the justice department and the conflict of interest top of the FBI, these things are much easier to prosecute. They're much easier to settle even out of court to get them. You might not be able to get them to admit kill, but you can definitely take these people out of arm. Anyone that was behind 9-11? Again, assuming that it was some kind of an inside job. Again, that's still an assumption. I don't think any of those people are really responsible for anything today. What's the point? Why are you going to waste the energy and the resources? Go after people that can still cause damage going forward. Not just go after them for the past. You use your resources more wisely. And at the same time, don't cause civil unrest in the streets by exposing something a little too early. Yeah, what I was going to say is I think people are going to be pretty disappointed. Trump supporters at least are going to be pretty disappointed in how he acts. We saw the same thing with Obama. He's supposed to be this hope and change candidate. As soon as he got elected, he started appointing a former Clinton administration officials to all his posts. Now we see the same thing with Trump. Buddy and around with Newt Gingrich and Rudy Giuliani. Just these Republicans from the 90s. And I thought he was supposed to be draining the swamp, but it just seems like he's putting the old water back in. Newt Gingrich, for example, he's probably the person second most responsible for NAFTA behind Bill Clinton. And charge of the Republican Congress at that time and work with Clinton to pass NAFTA. So if your hoping Trump is going to, for an example, get rid of these trade deals, the fact that he seems poised to appoint Newt to a high position should be discouraging. And the same thing goes with going after Hillary Clinton and locking her up. I think all these very populist, right-wing sort of viewpoints are going to be dropped on the way side. As it goes to be more practical. But we see the same thing that happened with Obama when it went in 2008. People will go along with that for a while, but eventually people will say, hey, you didn't enact what I wanted in the NAFTA when you're in office. And now I'm going to either not vote for you or I'm going to vote for Donald Trump or I'm going to vote for a third party. And I think we're starting to see the seeds of that now. We still got to watch them to see who he's really going to appoint. But his transition team is not making me optimistic that he's actually going to do some of these more extreme things. He's probably going to do half of what he said if we're lucky. Hopefully it's the good half and not the bad half. I really care about three appointments that he's going to make. Maybe three and a half, right? So the following three are like, this one's going to show you what Trump is, right? Who is he going to appoint as the nine, the court or justice? That's a big one, right? So Trump will get to appoint a Supreme Court justice. Trump will get to appoint the next federal reserve chairman. We all know his thoughts on Janet Yellen. He can't stand there. Right? So who's going to be that's another appointment. And who is he going to get to head the justice department? Those are three major appointments. The only other one that I would partially care about is going to be his top economic advisor. One, right? Because he probably thinks he knows everything. In the chat, they're saying Jamie Diamond for Treasury Secretary. How do you like that, Tom? Is that work? I mean, Treasury Secretary is a little bit better than the federal reserve, right? Treasury Secretary. Now, Federal Reserve is probably a pipe dream, but they want Ron Paul. What's going on with the cabinet right now? Chris Christie was this sick event who lost very early on in the Republican primaries and then ingratiated himself to Trump by backing him and helping him campaign. And he was hoping for, he was obviously angling for a cabinet position, but he's much too much of an idiot and a cipher for Trump to do that. But so he lobbed him the... Oh my Christ. Hey, Mike. Christie, what other things? Except the bridge gate issue is a positive one. So Trump lobbed him the the gig of a cabinet transition, whatever manager, I don't know what's called. And he's been shunting over banks to shills to the Trump campaign team. And I don't think that's really working for Trump. And I'm pretty sure that might have been a factor or it was probably possibly a main factor in the fact that Trump dropped Christie today, which I predicted yesterday, admittedly not that much leeway. Last night with my friend, I was talking about it and I was like, you know, I wouldn't be surprised if he drops Christie really soon because of all these appointment suggestions that I've been seeing. Or I'm like, I don't, I think Trump at least wants to give the appearance of appointing some independent thinkers to his cabinet, even if he doesn't intend and none of them intend to actually you know take action on any of that stuff. I think he wants to avoid the appearance of stacking his cabinet with too many inside. I actually, there was an article in the intercept, I think it was two days ago that was saying, um, uh, his transition teams got a lot of the same lobbyist that been part of the Clinton campaign. So I hope, uh, I voted third party, but I hope the Trump fights out there, uh, keep his feet to the fire and all that and don't just do what Democrats did. Once Obama got elected in all of a sudden, uh, you know, drone strikes are okay and war is okay and spines okay and all these things that I thought liberals are supposed to be against all of a sudden became fine once the Democrat was doing it. I hope we don't see the same pattern repeat itself with the Trumpites and, uh, you know, all of a sudden corruption and lobbyist are okay if Trump's doing it, but we'll, you know, like everything with Trump, we're just gonna have to wait and see. Yeah, let's get Blake. Can we get Blake in here? I did. He just looked like everyone seemed like. Share your opinions on Trump. Yeah, we want to know any of the favor. If you take the Trumps, so give me a chance. All right. My dog started barking right away, so he's got a thing to do. He will be heard. He can't silence the dog vote. They're gonna be the most vocal. Um, it's great to see you guys. It's been a long time. I've had a crazy schedule. Um, a tallies like the Bitcoin group is the thing that I would prefer to do the most each week if I could do whatever I wanted to. So I, uh, miss you guys more than I can explain. But, uh, yeah, with that, with the Trump victory and all that stuff, it's very, very funny because, you know, I tried to avoid, you know, uh, just accepting what the mainstream media says in a lot of situations, but they were so adamant that he had no chance at winning. I was like, yeah, but I guess there's just no chance at winning. I didn't, you know, think that it was gonna, you know, be possible. And then he ended up winning, which was really just a shock. And now it's come to, you know, well, what's he gonna do? Let's see who he appoints various different cabinet positions. Let's see, how he handles the presidency. And that's gonna really be the litmus test as far as, you know, is he going to get a whole bunch of banking insiders to fill out his cabinet or not? I think that'll be one of the strongest early indicators of, you know, what his presidency is gonna feel like as far as, is it gonna be like, um, you know, modern, uh, Trump as far as, um, kind of the same doing things, maybe to get elected. Or is it gonna be like, Trump from a long time ago when he helps that, you know, three-year-old special needs person with breathing problems in California, flat in New York, which the tune of like a hundred thousand dollars in a private jet to save their life. Like Trump has done some things that are really, really, really amazing in his life as far as like he had the money to make a situation change and he did it. But is that going to translate into the highly corruptible office of the executive? Is he gonna turn into a complete monster? Or is he going to, you know, have some of that cloud with them? And I think it's, I toss up, it's really interesting to see. I would be much less interested to see how it's gonna go one way or the other, if it was somewhere the other than Trump, which is bizarre to say because people dislike him so much. But I think that, um, you know, if the mainstream media tells me to hate him with every fiber of my being that it's time to think for myself. And I'm interested to see what's going on. And I think that as you guys were touching on, if he starts, uh, appointing banksters and stuff to his, uh, different positions, that'll be a huge indicator of, um, you know, maybe we're getting the shaft. But if that doesn't happen, hopefully there can be at least some kind of meaningful change from having basically the most liberal conservative ever elected to the office. Let's see, you know, what that's gonna be able to do now in our current situation. Good stuff. We're seeing in the chat, they're saying, uh, Trump should point a shack to the cabinet. Perhaps Tom Brady, Amarosa, a variety of other reality stars are being proposed for high offices. If you can get Tom Brady out of the AFC East that appoint him to anything, please. Good stuff. All right. Let's see if there's any more in the chat. Anything else to go on, Trump? I mean, we've talked about most of it. Do you think there's any tax implications? Is he going to the tax bit coin more? Are we going to see any kind of IRS? Is the ira, like, does he appoint an activist IRS director? What? You know, this is my view that Trump isn't all that great for Bitcoin. I mean, if he drops taxes, Bitcoin loses its advantage in the tax sphere. I mean, I would say that a little bit as well that if he becomes more conservative in the, the system becomes more of a machine unless it's a joke, that's not necessarily great for Bitcoin. Which if Trump eliminates AML KYC laws, we don't need Bitcoin. The only reason we need Bitcoin is because of AML KYC laws. These are the laws that I'm against. I don't want Bitcoin. I want to use my dollars. I'm a huge value piece. I mean, it seems like a cornerstone of the job. That's the one reason why we're doing Bitcoin. Yeah, what the hell? More than one year after I've elutioned, then just avoiding KYC laws. Yeah, come on. If I couldn't be doing this much illegal stuff, I'd be unhappy. My name's Tony. Yeah, exactly. Come on, Tony. You think the Federal Reserve has a defendable monetary policy? I know your pro, you know, debt creation on the bank level. So I guess why the hell are you on the show again? Rebirth. Hey, can down. I like this. This is best. We're seeing more support for Ron Paul as the Fed chairman. Let's go with a big question. I love the fact that we work in the see what we're going to see the inside of Fort Knox. How crazy is this, Trump? I don't know. That would be an amazing witness test. If he, but then the thing is though, like, is it really good to open that bag of worms and be like, $165? And that needs to be liquidated. We can't deal with this. So like, it's, I can't really see both ways. I know which way should go, but I wouldn't try one. I would go visit the gold. I would be like, I'm into gold. I don't want to see all this gold we got in Fort Knox. I want pictures of me selfies with the gold. Well, then you need to admit the Germany that their gold is gone. And that creates international relation ties until like there's so much like corrupt stuff going on. I know there's no gold. That's probably has no more gold. I want some accountability, but all at once might be more than we can handle. We could sit up some mirrors like we did with the rockets for the Russian. Try to make it seem like there's more gold because the mirrors. It's all over it. It's very open. As long as the windows aren't broken, I'm about mirrors. No broken mirrors are windows. I want the canesianism gone. The shot seems very conspiratorial today. They all agree there is no gold. So we're not going to the fed. We're not going to go into Fort Knox. Anything else, let's just go to the total fringes. Roswell investigation. Trump will reveal the existence of space aliens. Trump will reveal the existence of super weapons. Trump will reveal the Tesla research. We give that. The canesians are putting a lot of eggs in the alien technology basket. So hopefully for the canesians we get some alien technology to make it. We're going to make collectivism work. Hey, let's talk about this seriously. I'm the resident rabbit hole guy. So let me talk about this. I'm serious. Okay. That was reported. Okay. Okay. So first of all, it's not going to be Trump doing this. I already explained. We have entered the age of leaks. This will be bearifiable documents that will show contact with extraterrestrials. And then, you know, so I think that we're going to see, but that'll be after a lot of government revelations. I think we're going to see that. Do you think that it's happened and there's evidence out there that we can discover? Oh, yeah. Yeah. And it's also, you know, hidden, hidden engineering is already known. I mean, obviously there's, you know, military programs and such that are developing hidden engineering. But there's also hidden science and the hidden science. What is hidden engineering? Because it sounds like something that you know more about than maybe most people do. Um, hidden engineering is just, you know, devices that are not publicly known, right? So this is, you know, this goes from everything from just, you know, military weapons and stuff there, just slightly ahead of what we already know about all the way to super woo woo stuff. Like you said, the Tesla papers, for example, they were constantly confiscated from what? Tesla was working on an energy weapon. The Tesla was way ahead of his time. And he used energy vortexes to create what we would call today for energy. It's just simple manipulation of how the world really is. But the, in my opinion, the suppressed science, you know, Einstein's been, uh, Einstein actually figured out the unified field theory in the late 20s. But it's, it was so shocking for the populace to get this knowledge. But now people, I think, are going to be a bit more ready for it. It'll still be very shocking, but it won't completely collapse world society to know about. Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, so, so grand unified field theory was perfected in the 20s. Have we lost the key stones to be able to prove this? Why hasn't it been proven in academia yet? No, no, no, no, no, it's not that it's been lost. It's been suppressed. So people have been killed. Scientists get kidnapped. Scientists also get, uh, taken to cushy positions on the deep state and also breakaway space program, breakaway civilization. If I knew about grand unified field theory is proven, I might be able to be bright if they had a lot of money, but like, how does this not ever get leaked though? Because, there's tons of leaks. There's tons of leaks. There are all these people out there, but they get killed. Their reputations get smeared. There's a huge system that's been drawing off all the wealth of the industrialized era into a, uh, secrecy program that to try to keep it, um, under wraps. And I think that there was possibly a good reason to do that last century, where the shock to the culture would be so great that it would cause mass insanity, uh, among the, you know, religious populist, traditional populist. But now in the age of the internet, people have access to information. I think it's not going to be as much of a shock. This is my theory. I don't have, you know, visible, that much visible evidence, but there is a lot of leakers out there. They just have a whole lot of things about it. Yeah, it's fun to think about. They only have a minimum of documentary evidence. And that's why I think 2017, 18, 19, 20, and later we're going to see a lot of that those leaks come out. But meanwhile, I think that we're going to possibly also see some engineering and science leaks happen very soon. And then we're going to start seeing new technologies entering our culture. And that's going to be very shocking too. It's going to completely upend the energy paradigm that's currently in existence, including, uh, you know, clean renewable energy, like solar wind technology that's already known. I'm excited about the exact same, uh, results that you are. I'm more of, uh, in the camp of, like, I hope that intellectual property laws get overhauled and the people that have bought and sat on patents that have been purchased to make, um, fossil fuels more profitable will end up finally trickling out and then replacing a paradigm that we've been stuck in the muck of evolution and really relative to fossil fuel and explosive machines for a long time. I mean, that should have been a stage that we graduated from long ago in my opinion. I'm excited for that. Yeah, that's going to happen. It's inevitable. Let's see, Tony, we have a question about, will gold recover? You said gold was down about 10% will recover in the Trump years. I don't know how the conservatives could get lazy. It might be a tough call. Probably not. Probably not. The tough call, man, it's hard to get lazy when they're winning. Anybody that's winning gets lazy. So it's, I don't know about gold recovering. I think, um, I think gold has like one more push, like one more push and then it's over. Um, I've been say, I didn't think that one thousand 44 was the bottom. We hit that last December. I kept saying gold was going to go into triple digits. That one hundred and one thousand range. Let's see how bad this current slide is. One more push is one more push and gold that will maybe take it to between three and five thousand dollars and then it's over. Well, do you think if if Trump goes on a fall protectionist war path, that that will affect gold in a positive way? I mean, I don't think that's going to happen, but if it does, I mean, like that would be probably the one route where you'd see gold really surge. If like, you know, full protectionism, you'd just start to run rampant with the Trump administration. I don't see why. I don't see how they're correlated. I just like, if Trump starts to do some protectionism, how is gold going to help you? Right? He's going to, he is going to drop the tax rate so that yeah, the tax rate is going to be more fundamental as well. It'll overcome it. I mean, what wants you to drop the tax rate? There becomes infinitely better investments than gold. Like gold doesn't pay you anything. That's the problem. You know, okay, so Tom, let me ask you a pointed question. When people said that Trump talking about his interventionist policies was just saying that because he knows that when he lowers the corporate tax rate, he won't have to do that stuff. Do you buy into that when they say that he just said that because he knew it was popular, but he knows he won't have to do it once he lowers the corporate tax rate. It'll dissolve itself, or resolve itself. No, no, I think he will do some of it, right? But I think he'll do more of it in the political realm than the direct economic realm, right? So I think I believe in when he says that, look, I want other countries, you know, paying us for protecting them, right? Like, like, like that, but I don't think he's not. No, I mean economic protectionism isn't, isn't like value added taxes and trying to make it so that businesses don't support us. I believe any time he mentions tariffs or anything, where it once again, we're into a negotiation frame. That's what I mean. He's willing to take 50% on a kind of a 30% you know, it's a negotiation. But there's more than one kind of a mechanism. That's what I mean. I'm talking about that kind of thing. Right. It doesn't make no sense, right? I mean, like, look, Europe does value added tax, which is as ridiculous as the name sounds. Yeah. You have to add any value by adding a tax. So Trump is going the other way. Instead of adding taxes to goods coming in, he's lowering taxes and goods created here. It makes no sense to, you know, lower taxes here and add taxes on other stuff. Exactly. He doesn't it taxes. So there become much better investment opportunities than gold. Also, even if he does go to full-blown protectionism and makes it hard for people to come in and out of the country, which I doubt will happen. But again, this is my saying. Gold became irrelevant today. Metal detectors were created. And when the last, when the last of these gold pushers, you know, from the 60s and 70s and 80s, the ones that have been screening, you know, gold is going to 100,000 from, you know, 1971 and up. When the rest of them eventually, they're all going to die, right? It's been 40 years and gold hasn't done that. Right. So, but gold could have done that. If we had gone full dirt mode as far as collectivist policies, gold could have done that. I think gold is good as far as like, you know, the Russian space program has the manual override on almost everything that they do. I think that's good to have gold around as that manual override. Is it beginning to become less significant as the economy becomes stronger? I think that's true. I think it's always good to have around, but I think that it's going to become less and less important to have around it. There's other faster options. Gold's greatest use case got neutered. Metal detectors, right? So gold's greatest use case of moving your value across borders no longer exists. Metal detectors still have really a huge impact. What about the zombie apocalypse? Are we still heading to a breakdown in society where we're stalking up on food? I'm looking at the chat. They say they're long whiskey, they're long cigarettes. I've always argued those little whiskey bottles and toilet paper. Those are your trading implements of the future. A little whiskey bottle so you only have some whiskey, not a lot. Do we still need gold? Am I going to trade these things? Is that that's the general? No. We've had like six years of the show walking dead. Not once has gold dimensioned, right? And that's correct we saw. I've always wondered what we're doing on a paper. It's tokens with and why someone would not just rob you for your gold. I've always wondered this. Yes, zombie apocalypse comes. I want to hatch it, not a gold bar. I want to go to hatch it. Maybe we can march a lot. These are the things you're going to need. It's things you can carry with you. You don't need heavy things. But it's interesting. I mean, is there still need for the survival kits since step 100 Trump presidency? Hopefully not. Hopefully it goes in a direction that really makes that stuff more and more and more ridiculous. But as far as we know, I mean, the national debt and the currency is getting really thin still. I mean, I wouldn't go in through how away any food stores that you have a way yet. I mean, you want to see the way that it goes. I really want to be a true leader for Trump. I'm just going to be fine. The mainstream should is great. But you have to look at what's going on. Can we also like just I want to really mention the elephant in the room. Like I'm very worried for Trump's safety in the near future and in a slightly longer future. So let's not take it for granted that he's actually going to be president for next four years. And I'm playing the media for this. They really painted Trump as a devil and he's not. Yes, they did. They really made people afraid. The old people I know are afraid. I mean, do you really think that Trump is in a greater threat than Obama? I heard the same 2000. Oh, yeah. Certainly Obama is an African-American man. There's a lot of people that don't like that. You think Trump is in a greater threat? Yes. I mean, I met old people that were convinced that Obama was like Manchurian Canaan and at Muslim sense of the story or country. Everyone is going to be put into FEMA camps by the end of his first term and stuff like that. I mean, this is the same like hyperbolic sky is falling shit. We get every time someone's elected. You know, he is, I mean, the media portrayed him a certain way, but you know, he didn't do himself any favors, you know, basically South Park's portrayal of him as Mr. Garrison saying, fuck him all to death. Isn't really that bar off from like the actual things he said about immigrants and Islamic people or whatever. So, wait, I mean, the media hasn't given him exactly like an easy go at it, but he hasn't helped himself either. When did Trump say that? I must have missed that one. The Trump has called for a ban on Muslims. He's spoken out against Mexican immigrants. On Muslim rapists and the not on the North. This is all on immigration, not on the people themselves. It's got to be framed around immigration. One is around a legal immigration, and the other one is around voluntary immigration. Having voluntary immigration from people that may or may not really, really, really hate our homosexual population and or our female population for not being conservative enough, is it legitimate risk? Is it popular to say no? Am I going to wear any points for saying that? No, but it's, it's at least something that can be interesting. We do have a general agreement with Trump on whether Islam is the source of terrorism, whether it's religious terrorism, that is the debate that we're having. He wants to ban all Muslims according to his speech. Thomas, Thomas, I think it's kind of irrelevant whether what the cause is. Just look at the literal effects, provable effects that have happened in Europe. There's a there's a rape epidemic currently happening in Europe, and I would not be surprised at all. If next year we start to see a big reaction from the people that migrated there before the migration from the South and from the Middle East, against this huge culture clash. The EU authorities took a huge risk bringing in hundreds of thousands of people into a completely different culture, and they're just going wild. Of course, and they're lying about their age, like to be expected from desperate people who don't have a home, don't have food, don't have money. They come into a new culture, and the young man, of course, they're going to go crazy. They don't have anything else to do. And I don't want to criticize the culture. I'm not saying that you're doing it. I want to criticize the culture or say that any culture is bad of all of it. I do want to say that certain cultures are incompatible. Certain oil and water cultures are going to be really, really hard to do. And especially when there's going to be very, very, very self-oriented individualist women, and then a culture that says that that's really, really something that's harmful and needs to be quashed. That's going to get really, really hairy, really, really quick. When you merge those two types of ideologies together, where women are saying, I have the right to do everything that a man can do and how dare you say anything about that, which I can respect and relate to. And then people say, in certain other countries, the women need to not get up to and misbehave and stuff like that. It's like, oh, this is not going to end well. This is going to be a really, really, really hard thing for these people to agree on and talk about peacefully. I think we're going to wait for an idea of religion test or explain people based off of the religion. It's how do you feel about X group of people doing X group of things and that people are reacting to that? My point is that it's a slippery slope that, once you start making a test about religion and trying to bang Islamic people, not about religion about that behavior. Well, whatever you want to, if we're based on it off of what Trump said, which is that he wants a religion test to make sure people can't come in in a country, first of all, it's going to be an aspect of the people who go to lie. That's what I agree. Guys, guys, guys. But with these laws, let me finish real quick, Ton. And 10 years, if the economy keeps getting worse and worse and worse, how long will it be? Is it really out of the realm of possibility that we have a Westboro Baptist 2.0 that actually takes their extreme views to violence? And then what are we going to do? Then have a test that checks, if you're a fundamentalist Christian, all these things that we apply to one group of people will eventually be replied to all of us because the laws that they put up against, the racketeer laws that were supposed to be against mafia members, now they're used against every single criminal. Anything we do to one group of people is going to be applied to all of us. And that's why we have to be very careful about what we apply to certain groups of people. I totally agree. I totally agree. You cannot call out individuals. You have to say, objectively, if you treat or think about people in a certain way that's going to violate their negative rights, that's what I mean. The appetitivist. It has to be, appetitivist shit. You cannot mention specific trends in the change in more of it's got to be behavior-based. Think about people. I mean, we're already in such authoritarian territory with this comfort, with this country and around the world. I mean, if we explicitly go into thinking, I mean, we're already there with the attacks on the Second Amendment, with the political correctist bullshit. Now, forcing public bathroom owners to allow, you know, by a lot of the property mails. Changing rules on private property is really pushing the balance, even if you think it's for a really good thing. Yeah, exactly. Let me jump back in for a second. I actually like the fact that Trump doesn't give a shit about a lot of political correctness, which is me too. Look, I thought Trump made this very clear. He just wants better background checks. He wants to just do better background checks. That was his big thing. And I agree with him. You need better background checks. Especially when people are coming to say their kids that are not. Our security apparatus, like the TSA, is completely out of control. What we need is really style security where they talk to you at the gate, they talk to you at the line, they talk to you at the next gate. You've met three agents by the time you get to the airplane. That's I know. But now for me, I've been like, singled out and like, every time I fly back into America, I've been like, taking out of line, taking to the side, being asked a million questions. And it's hard for me to answer because they asked me what I do for a living. And I honestly don't know. So I always give up like a different random answer. Because I don't know what I do for a living. I don't really do much. Yeah, I'm always freaking busy. So it's hard for me to explain to these guys what I do for a living and be consistent. But I always get taken out of line. I always get my bags looked at. Not always, but I say, crossing back to the US. And I'm not the idea why I'm getting singled out. And their biggest problem is because I travel with so little bags because I'm so used to traveling. I never check luggage. It's just a huge annoyance for me. So I pack enough clothes for five to six days. And if I travel for two months in a row, I'll just do laundry. Things can do that. Especially I love Asia. They'll just don't do it every day for you. Just sleep, leave your shirt and then come back the next day and it's all there hanging in your closet. And so Trunches was better background checks. He was very, very clear about this. Also, to know Germany, I actually spent a little time with I'm here in Russia. I was here for a Bitcoin conference contrary to what people are saying about Russia and Bitcoin, even though it is kind of frowned upon. And there was a girl I was saying out with and she's from Germany. And I asked her, we didn't really get into the topic of the Muslim immigration there. But I have an open invitation to go to Germany and I'm actually thinking, I don't offer mostly because you know, it's hard for us to be like, none of us here have been to Germany. So we don't really know what the hell is really going on there. I try to avoid Europe like the plague. I don't really want to go to any country that uses the euro. But I need to see it for myself. It's like my whole family was telling me, oh, you're going to Russia. Be careful. This and that. Try not to let them know that you're American. Try not to speak English. And in case you're wondering what the hell might I can speak if my family's not me not to speak English. I do speak full of Russian. So that helps me be in Russia. But it's not, it really not like that. I mean, you walk around the street, nobody cares. Other people are speaking English. It's not really a problem. So you really got to go to these countries to get a real idea. And you can't just stay at the hotel. You got to try and rent an apartment. You got to live like a local for a week, you really know. Now the stories that I do here that family got to live in an authentic gas house. We try to do. Now it's hard not to believe the stories when you have like, there is way too many, you know, male adults from the Muslim countries coming in. They should have made a better restriction. It should be like, you know, it's more open to women and it's more open to especially women with young children. You can have like that. To have a cut off date because it's hard. Well, and that's how it passed popular support. They were told everybody was promised up and down that it was going. But they've been in the women and children needed refuge and who's going to turn away women and children. And then they brought all these people in, which is so terrible. But that lie to have been. But not because they didn't put in the border controls to check for this. Oh, I totally agree. It's hard. It's hard to draw like a line like it. It's like, oh, children, but how are these children? Why would they prove their age? It's hard to do. So the cut off line will be like women with children, you know, children under age 10, let's say, right? If you're under age 10, if you're obviously under age 10, you can come in. If you're not obvious under age 10, then you better prove that you're under age 10, or you can't come in, right? I mean, their problem is going to be the could have done it in a much better way. But it was interesting what she said because she is from Germany. And then she's like, well, here in Germany, we had a big shortage of let's say, people that will clean your house, people that will do like the low and labor. That's because their population is so low. Right. Right. And I'm like, well, if you drop the minimum wage laws, people to get people to do this, you know, dirty labor. And then she's like, no, it's kind of been grown out of our culture. And when she said that I'm like, you're right, that actually makes sense. That kind of makes sense. But again, there's a difference between Muslim males coming in, you know, in their early 20s and females with young children. These are very, very different things. And it should be obvious what a young child is. And if it's not young, then they need to prove the age of that child. I mean, I am reading the same articles, everybody else's, that there's like, you know, 14 year olds in fifth, in like four fifth grade, which I think is absolutely ridiculous. I mean, it would be fun. I would like to do it. But unless I'll let you're there for yourself to actually see it, I really try. I mean, I also talk about it. But now I'm being a little careful. I might end up going to Germany just to see things for myself. Same thing with Sweden. They're having insane issues as well. I had an open invitation to go to Sweden, but our schedules didn't match. I really like Rick Falquel, the pirate party founder out in Sweden. Falquarge. Let me get in here. A couple of things about what you said, tone. One, he said it was very clear that Trump just wanted, you know, stricter background checks, but that's just not true at all. He, like everything else with Trump, he wasn't very clear. He had a lot of conflicting opinions on his own plans. But he did advocate for religion tests. He did, at one time, advocate banning all immigration from Muslim countries. I mean, these are things that he actually did. He made it back, back to A from him at some point. But ultimately, I mean, why are we so scared of these immigrants? I mean, we're the country that beat the Nazis, that beat the Soviet Union. I'm not scared of, you know, influx of Islamic, it's easy. They probably gangs or whatever. It's where's the value proposition? It's not fear. It's where, how do we benefit from it? Well, of course, we benefit from it. You know, more immigrants are more people buying stuff. You know, we have a slow and birth rate in this country. I've said it on this show before, where you eventually go into need immigrants to reverse that slow and birth rate and give us more buyers. But that's it. We continue with collectivist policies of the birth rate. Oh, no, no, no, you need birth rate for capitalist policies for this, they're not a lot of people up in here. Where you always have to have more profit, this infinite profit model needs, you need more buyers every year than you had the year. But that happens on a birthday to work. Go ahead. Hey, guys, I'm going to jump back in for a second. It's like 3.30 in the morning here. So I'm going to get going. It was a good discussion, but I'll leave you to it. All right. Thanks for being here, Tom. I'm glad you're here. See you at 10. It's always a pleasure. Good job. Thanks, man. Good to see you back here. Bye. Bye, guys. Have fun in Russia. All right. So there's been some, I had a snow to be snowed. There's been some funny comments in the chat. I just want to go through a couple of them. Julian says, I was asked on my entry into Australia last month at Customs. Do you understand why I am searching your luggage today? And then Julian says, just a note for all, for speedy transit through Customs, the answer to justify your government payroll is not the right answer. I'm also seeing they're talking about which kind of refugees are okay. They say it's women and children, young children, dogs and cats are not allowed unless they're Christian. I'd like to call out Chuck Gaffert again. He's joined our chat many times for the live. Broadcast and he describes this in the context of regulation and how laws are meant to affect and control the populace. Here's the progression. Terrorism goes to drugs, goes to parking tickets. All right. And I do have one more issue about Trump. I want to talk about the potential for hate. And I'm worried about the hate that may have already been unleashed. I don't know if you guys have been seeing on the media and Twitter. I've seen a lot of stories of people of color, other people with hijabs, people lesbian gay by, there's a lot of letters now, LGBTQT. I'm not sure. When I added the Q is when I was like, they added the Q. It's been difficult since then. I had to write down the Q. The original thing was fine and I include all the other groups. But there's been some scariness. There's been some hate. Do you guys believe this is going to continue? Is there a certain section of the population that is somehow now emboldened by Trump? Where you used to just look at a pretty woman, now you would yell something horrible. And you maybe used to look at these people don't like immigrants or whatever. But now they wouldn't just look. They're going to yell something horrible. Is that something? I'm already seeing lots and reports of that in the media. But of course, they love to go on onto things like that and make a huge deal out of them. Is it true that that's going to be a movement if it happens 11 times a day in the country of 350 million? I don't know. Was Trump encouraging this in the primaries? Is he not encouraging it now? Do we think that is his actions? Is he going to call out against this? Is he going to encourage it more slightly? I mean, what do you think? I think he's going to stay out of the fray and let things play out as they will. Well, I went to the bank and the woman that was working there didn't do exactly what I wanted to. We started by the pussy. I said, you listen to me. We have Donald Trump now. And then she was like, you're right. We have a new leader. It's time for me to be submissive to the patriarchy. I'm like, thank you. I mean, that's the least you could possibly be. No, I mean, I think that it's a lot of hyperbole people were like, you know, Barack Obama is a Saudi terrorist that was born in Donemoon. And then people are like, Trump is the worst person ever. I think that the biggest person to blame here is the media. I mean, the media has made Trump into such a monster. And are some of the people that support Trump really, really wacky? Oh, God, yeah. I mean, any group that is large as, you know, you got two political parties where we have two sexes, like those are some pretty large groups. They're to find some people that are, you know, completely off their rockers. And that's like, there's a lot of Democrats or anarcho-communists or whoever that are, you know, rioting right now and destroying stuff. Do I think that that's the majority of Democrats? Absolutely not. That would be ridiculous for me to think of that. And to think of the majority of Trump supporters as racist or able to, it is absurd. I mean, I'm not, you know, afraid that Trump has won and I have a special needs child. And, you know, if anybody would have the right to be like, oh, it's going to be scary. I think it would be somebody with a child with a disability. So I mean, if I can, if I'm not scared, I would really call on you guys to try to do what you can to try to pull your stuff together. And if you're liberal, argue for liberal policies using logic and reason, if you're conservative, do the same, cut back the emotionality. No violence and we'll be fine. Yeah, I was your thoughts. Good. Yeah, I would like to just echo that. I mean, that was very well said. Like, you know, I know someone in the chat called me Indian or Latino sorrows. I probably am more liberal than your average. I've seen the paychecks from sorrows at you. I mean, you were hanging out one day and I was like, what's this? We're going to have a problem. We had a fist fight. We worked it out. But, you know, I'm usually in favor of protest, you know, just in general, I feel like the government has been screwing us over so long. And, you know, when it's Tea Party and then when it's Occupy, I was just happy to see people out on the streets and arguing. But this recent rush of protests, it just seems so reactionary. I just, I just want everyone to calm down, just accept the election. And, and, you know, as soon as Trump does, something authoritarian, which I, you know, I hope he doesn't. But if he does do the things that they're scared of, then I'll be the first one out there protesting with them. But protest and now it just seems so counterproductive against. Especially when it should have been done. When he'll be stolen from Bernie. Do you think? Exactly. Yeah. What are they completing? The protests are a reaction. These people are afraid and they don't know what to do. And I do think that as we look at the media, not even the mainstream, but more like Facebook, people like Michael Moore, we're starting to see a democratic plan come together. They're going to basically attempt, hopefully, to turn themselves into an opposition, which is what the Republicans did to Obama. The Republicans were there every day trying to impeach him. They had, I don't know, 60 or 70 votes to try to beat Obama. I love the idea of the opposition. I believe that if you really support your ideas, you should continue fighting for them after the election. Is it a permanent campaign? Is that a horrible thing? I think Mao would say something about permanent campaign. There's a... I would say that anybody that thinks that freedom and apathy are things that can work together. You're clueless. I mean, with every two parts apathy, come one part despair. And if you think that one part despair isn't coming, you're in for a fucking rude awakening. So I apologize the language, but you have to care and constantly debate and be sharp on the things you believe. And if not, don't expect anybody else to fight for you. It's vitally important. And remember the Democrats, while the electoral college victory for Trump is huge, the actual margin of victory is about 0.01%. It's 120,000 votes in the Great Lakes region would have flipped this election. So he's not that far out ahead. Yeah. I grew up, or went to high school, or whatever during the Bush administration. And things seem so simple to me back then. We had this Republican president that was doing wars, and then we had all the Democrats on the side fighting against it. Then Obama got elected, and all of a sudden, the war was great. So everyone that was anti-war became a neo-liberal, which is basically just a neo-con that supported gay marriage. Yeah, it's unsettling. And so I am going to be a little bit happy to see all these Democrats come back over to my side. And all of a sudden, when I went to protest the wars while Obama was in office, we had about 10,000 people on the street during the Bush administration. We had it, well, they had because I was too young to convince my parents to bring me to one of those, like 100,000 people on the street. So hopefully, we're going to see Democrats become actual liberals again, and you can agree or disagree with liberal policies. I think it's everyone can probably agree. It's better if we have one side, especially on the topic of foreign policy, we have such a like a spy party that's in consensus on foreign policy when it Democrats in office, because you got them causing the war and you got the Republicans who are always traditionally in favor of war. Now that it's going to be Trump's running these wars, hopefully, we'll actually get some people out in the street. I actually want to jump in for a second. They're not traditionally in favor of war. I think that you're slice of life where you've been alive. That's very, very, very true, but it's not been historically accurate. Well, yeah. I mean, the Republicans of today have since some very war hawkish, yes. Yeah, since since the Bush administration 2001 is I think we're going to see more of that. I think we'll see less. Let's see, again, distracted by the chat. I love getting I love I love engaging with the chat. I think that's some of the best stuff that we produce. Yeah, but I think we're about running out of stuff. Let's see hawkish. What are we going to do? No, I think it's important having opposition. I think it's important to fight this thing. I think the I think some of the things on the chat real quick. I just want to say I agree. Yeah, it's Clinton with super hawkish of Bush and Obama were equal on the foreign policy. And that's my point is that when the Democrat does it the a Democrat president does the Democratic voters just ignore it. So now that we're doing it. For peace with Russia will hold Trump accountable. Basically, like that that's private takeaway definitely is that hopefully whereas we saw some of the liberals really really fold in that regard. Hopefully all of the conservative in any way people have voted for Trump that wanted peace with Russia. If anything, you know kicks off that triggers that to not be the case. Hopefully they hold him accountable as possible. I don't think anybody would disagree with that for sure. Okay, I think I remember what I was going to say when Ian was talking, he was talking about neoliberalism. And I really think we've seen the death of that neoliberalism was the idea that the Democrats could fight the conservatives at their own game that they could buddy up to corporations that they could take the large donations that they could support things like NAFTA and TPP, these huge trade deals that the Democrats could be everything to everybody. And I think we're seeing a return to progressive politics, perhaps even socialist politics like Sanders, whereas I think Trump pushed the Republicans out the other way. So maybe we're seeing a true expansion of our political discussion out to the edges and maybe we'll find more solutions out there because they are more edge, they're more real, they're more grounded. Whereas we've been trying this middle way of everything in the middle. Now what do you think Gabe? Repeat the question. Is it the end of neoliberalism? Is progressivism coming back? Are we going to see a true battle of ideas between the extreme right and the extreme left and have maybe a better conversation? We had this conversation before with Al Gore and Ralph Nader in 2000 where he said Bush and Corridor the same, he said the two parties are the same. Right. Can I weigh in really quick? Go ahead. I think I think I have a feeling we're going to say the same thing, which is you're completely ignoring the other access to the political spectrum. No. Go ahead then. I think that you're definitely on a course to exactly what's right. I think the information age is going to lead a lot more people to be physically conservative and socially liberal. We're going to continue to find that party and that amalgamation and as people wake up and they read more that that's going to be the big thing that happens. As people become way more socially liberal, they become way less intolerant of things that ruffle their genemies and that trigger them and that they become way way more physically responsible and being like, you know, we can track all this stuff on the internet to with black chains or whatever. We can see if you're co-mingling funds and doing all kinds of stuff which waste money. And I think there's that direction to the future and we're very excited for that. Well, I think that's going to take a number of years. I mean, as we're seeing now the shock and appalling feelings of appalling emotions that people are experiencing now that believe the mainstream narrative is the beginning of a massive shift in the American culture and in the American mindset. And I think part of that, as I was just saying, is the recognition of the other of the second axis of political, you could say there's even more than two, but certainly the second axis would be that between authoritarianism and freedom or liberty as they call it in political discourse. And we're seeing that emerging now all over the Western world, which has been ignored in the era or era, as we say here on the West Coast, in the era of the nation state, the giant nation state who's existence is enabled by the industrial, was enabled by the industrial revolution and whose complete raison d'etre was supported mostly by economies of scale. When you decentralize information flows and the rest of society, as we are in the process of doing over the last couple decades, those economies of scale that our geography based quickly begin to collapse. And we're seeing the cracks in the edifices of the nation state structure for the world society. And it's really surprising for people that it weren't prepared for that, like with Brexit. Brexit was part of a seismic shift in British politics where the left-right paradigm of labor and conservative is breaking down because they've been the same for 20 and 30 and 40 years. They've been planned by the same central planner as the deep state. And the shadow government here in the US, for example. So I think we're seeing a rapid shift, the very beginnings of the rapid shift down from the authoritarian toward the liberty side of the spectrum. And that's causing seismic shifts in both political parties. We saw a complete outsider candidate take the Republican candidacy this year. We saw the outsider candidacy on the Democratic side absolutely leading by huge amounts drawing massive crowds while Clinton had groups of 150 people at elementary schools. And those were massive crowds for an elderly socialist. Right, elderly socialist, who's not an anti-missed worker. Not very charismatic. He's a decent speaker, but not very charismatic, not very likable at all. He's just, he's an outsider and he was, like Trump, he was correctly diagnosing the issues or many of the issues that real people are experiencing in their daily lives. Unlike the fantasy media, Clinton, Obama, narrative of recovery since 2008, rather than absolute depression since 2008. And I think we're ready for our next leg down, just like in 1937. I'm very much hoping that we don't have a world war to try to pull us out or to try, you know, as a result of a week. We haven't had a conservative apparatus since about 1928 as far as the House Senate and executive all being conservative. But what a lot of people are talking about right now, which I think deserves a lot of attention, even like Trump is present, which is good, but like the Podesta scandals and the pizza parties and the stuff that came out from the liberal establishment. If the liberal stopped needing to clean house a little bit, like that's good. They were smart to know that, but the extent to which that was necessary and the extent to which extremely malfeasant stuff to the part of the, to the point of degeneracy that I cannot even imagine that was going on with the leaks that were exposed, that is terrifying. And that's just the very beginning. And this is just the very tip of the iceberg. And I'd like to quickly correct you in your terminology. I really hope that we can see this in our society that we move away from this turn liberal because liberal is derived from liberty, which is freedom, which I totally agree. I totally agree. I told you. We should call it what is the leftist neo-deficit response. It's leftist and democratic. Socialist, slash communist authoritarian speaking. It's the upper left of the political chart as they draw it. I 100,000% give you that. That's absolutely what I meant to say. And these people, when you uncover what happens to those that are given power and the thought that they won the ideological war, then they should have in pizza parties where the there that looked very to the point where when pizza party means you know who's bringing the pizza party means like who's bringing the kids and the party is going to be something that maybe the kids don't enjoy. Like that right the child the child prostitution allegations. That makes me that makes me furious to the extent that like that's not happening somewhere far off or whatever. There's people that are supposed to be running stuff in the West that are sending emails that are you know we've been probably obviscating children. We've been seeing drips and drabs of the child of the pep was it called Pedo? Pedo Pedo Pedo Filia allegations and proof coming out of the Christian the Catholic Church for 20 30 years and then you know there was all there was slight inklings of that before that and then we've seen tons and tons of proof of that endemically in the Catholic Church. And now over the past five years we've been seeing black and white proof of that in the UK elite circles and now finally we're seeing the evidence for child prostitution endemic systemic child prostitution child slavery sex slavery child what are they called sex trafficking and pedophilia allegations now we're starting to see the black and white proof of that and I guarantee you we're going to see huge revelations on that particular score which is like the worst that's the bottom of the barrel as far as social attitudes go for for these power mongers and power brokers at the top. Definitely definitely and people that are like you know are you willing to go to war and die and sacrifice your life for rumors of chemical weapons in Iraq it's like no but am I willing to code war and die in terms of like making it so that people can't molest children yeah absolutely you want you want to go tell us though with me in terms of that being the end result you're gonna lose that makes me so angry on a fundamental level that anybody would just ever do that that is just you know you got a prison and you've done stuff like that the other prisoners that are in there that feel guilty because they can't be parents there stuff. So it's like you're all tough and flush them down the toilet. Yeah yeah that anger is so despicable and I'm not a fan of corporate I don't want to hurt people but those types of crimes make me just be read. We're gonna we're gonna see that exactly that anger that you're expressing and feeling there we're gonna see that spread like a wildfire throughout the world population but and we've seen inklings of this I forget his name but there's a television presenter in the UK who was a molesting children for about 40 years everyone covered it up everyone seems to be in on it and I think all of these things which what's really let's take a step back what we're talking about here is the wiki leaks exposure of the DNC emails. Well I want to get one side we didn't get the RNC we could have gotten both next time maybe we'll get both I think Gabe's right we're gonna see more leaks I think we're gonna see more hacks yeah I gotta I gotta bring up really quick this David Seaman here David Seaman and I had a huge falling out I'm not a huge fan of David Seaman but I do have to even though I'm so mad at him and he's not the greatest person ever he did such a great job as far as uncovering various different corrupt pieces and having so many of his fan base mad at him like do I do I do I think that people should go out and like donate money to David Seaman something like that like no maybe not but I can say even though I had a fight with this person it was amazing to me the amount of effort that he put into undercover or I'm sorry uncovering all these different things that the other media didn't so even summary that I think maybe isn't the greatest person being that much objectively better than the mainstream media that's something that we have to just look at and be like wow that's you know the media has really really failed us and I have a really short point to make and then I go ahead I might say just quickly on the RNC the WikiLeaks claim that they were very open and call it they they did call publicly for any Republican leaks that anyone would like to pass them in my opinion on as far as the RNC I think the Republican Party was a little ahead of the Democratic Party because so many you know more there's more so many more individualists among the Republicans so I think the collapse of the Republican Party as a viable political arm in in the American political landscape was a little ahead of the Democrats so I think that they've been in disarray for several years and so they really haven't been there's nothing there to leak because they're kind of without power so the real power brokers have have left reigns pre-biss and all these idiots behind a little bit longer ago yeah so to go ahead and you had a point yeah I totally agree with that I just wanted to go real back to the um uh as neo-liberalism is to add it you know um discussion that we were having a little bit earlier I think what we might see especially if um if Trump doesn't follow through on his promises and gets his supporters angry we always talk about politics on this like this line left and right you know but it's a little bit more complicated than that I think if if if Trump doesn't keep his the people of the people of the top of the top of the top of the top of the top of the top of the top revolution where because he he had a lot of very populist ideas that you know appeal to the to the right Bernie had a lot of populist ideas that appeal to the left and the one thing that I think you know I'm economically I'm different than a lot of you guys here but I think the one thing we can all agree on is we don't want corruption and government and and that there's a ton of corruption in government right now so I can foresee a scenario where maybe um socialist and and libertarians work together temporarily to uh get corruption out of government and then we can argue over you know how we want to bring this country this way or that way but you know get to the point where the country is actually working for us where the government's working for us and then we can argue about what we want that government to do but how it is now with lobbyists and everything else none of us are going to get what we want because they aren't listening to us whether whether you're I think I think I think that that's a pipe dream um the idea of the um you know hardcore a leftist and a hardcore libertarians working together I think once again that you're mixing two axes so if you have left leftists who are maybe more toward the freedom side of the paradigm certainly yeah I think you're right you're absolutely right about weird different bridges being made in the electoral uh landscape in the United States and around the world absolutely and I think that's part of that shift of of political of political positioning absolutely but um this idea of taking away corruption from government is completely unrealistic totally a pipe dream has absolutely no historical or logical basis or philosophical basis well you're not going to get a government without corruption but there there there's a certain amount of corruption that a government can take and still function when you get a completely and completely drenching corruption it's completely different than it if you know there's a little bit of corruption no it's of course they're going to have but definition that listens to the voters and and have the policies dictated to them by voters and I can see that that is dictated by by um by the contributors rather than the voters and that's a pipe you can see the party when we add restrictions against uh uh campaign donations yes restrictions we used to have a lot of great laws but the Supreme Court saw to that yeah here's the thing restrictions and all those laws don't do shit you force people and you coerce people to do stuff and it doesn't work okay so let me let me ask you this what's laws all about the beginning of the report roman republic was just as struck as the end of roman republic there's obviously different levels of corruption within government yes what are the laws which laws are we talking about it's a material here hold on hold on I it's not material yet because I am making the contention that that it's impossible to run a government that doesn't have corruption at its core just because Rome just because the popularism is happier you can have more and less corruption but corruption is the basis for government and I think we're going to see bitcoin and the internet are the beginnings of this new system of governance not government not an established body that has a coercion on that has a monopoly on coercion violence but instead systems that are set up and no systems wherever set up voluntarily through the old legacy government no they they they weren't you couldn't because we didn't have the tech for it you had to send letters but I don't even way back in the day not even way back in the day as far as the way to have avious corpus and to making the dualism no no only pre agriculture that that's not the real asking for the land but we have to we're not at a point where we can make a blockchain government and have a function we're not at a point where where everything is going to be run on the internet we're we might be getting there but we have to deal with the situation we have now which you know why we're not there yet you use corruption in government and not just why are we not there yet uh hey Ian you just dropped out I want to hear what you were saying me too I dropped out again but um yeah I that's true you're right it's not it's certainly not instant this is going to take decades what I'm talking about but I just want to make sure that people aren't deluding themselves that that it's possible to eradicate corruption from government and I do agree that lessening corruption is a good near term goal I don't know but but saying that it's impossible to eradicate corruption from government maybe true it may be giving a lot of information but also we could try to eradicate some corruption through government by making it an individualist even playing field instead of trying to make it some kind of a one-up virtue signal content that that's absolutely true and uh we're already uh you know well on our way with bitcoin we've got a solution to the monetary conundrum that has plagued our society since 1922 or 71 or uh even 45 or even long actually since the establishment of the federal reserve in this country so we've got on Nixon and Walter Wilson let's let's do it with what Ian said I think he got yeah exactly so yeah but I think we're well on our way and it's the monetary side that we're they're able to draw infinite well nearly near infinite wealth trillions from the populace uh now and that will stop and then we're going to see a lot of corruption fall fall away like like you said let's see pretty pretty staunch libertarians let me uh let me ask you this do you would you be willing to put aside some differences with the left in order to um let's say get country campaign contributions out of our elections or something no no not ever and this is why the the political belief system that I hold is not based on anything except for is it abdictively is it abdictically and incontrovertibly so what's abdictically that means beyond argument means binary it means that it's something that's a lot of opposed to not yeah it's very close to incontrovertible so like uh economics should be concerned with apodectic statements not with a whole bunch of um fully so what what libertarianism is it is what negative rights and positive rights can be held in balance and make the entire system work which liberties versus entitlements are actually mathematically tenable through a system of logic that doesn't take anything else into consideration so when you take that really aim a attentive requirement for for for stuff Ian it pains me to say no we will not work with the left at all it will be complete gridlock there's not gonna be any don't let's say there's a Bernie Sanders-Ron Paul you need to Ian night i'm working with that can i don't think he will be but here's here's it's my i might i might i might vote self-defense because something else is worse right right the end of the day the no it's it's absolutely i think these are two strange bedfellows it's like oil and water yeah i don't think so because but the different ways to get there well here's the thing it's once again imagine the square of of a political spectrum with authoritarian at the top you know calling the shots and liberty at the bottom and then you know left and right um if you if you're talking about you know uh posse a lot of Bernie supporters are going to be bottom left right they're gonna want they're you're gonna want people not to have to starve to death they're gonna want people to be helped want people to be open-minded but they don't want too much authoritarian government they want people to stay out and maybe just protect a little bit against a couple really bad you know environmental abuses or something so i think that you know that you have to just take this this you know it's sort of chart in as as a as a shorthand and maybe say okay yes sure maybe some people at the bottom the liberty oriented people are both left and maybe conservative libertarians or traditional american small uh large-el libertarians might have find some common ground and coming in coming years for sure but i think it's important um it's not in but i don't think it's important this my personal view on the matter is that a lot of the motivation for the left can be taken on board and should be taken on board into a lot of thinking in the future the motivation being helping people making sure uh to um move society in a direction that reduces human suffering you know but we have to do it in ways that don't utilize coercion for it yeah i think that it's absolutely their job to to research and utilize non-neugenic forms of making the world better and what does that mean it generally means free markets it generally means that people can say what they want you can't throw somebody in prison for attacking the president you can buy and sell what you want to and that looks pretty good to me i don't know i mean like i know there's a lot of extra rationalizations of people can make to make that situation look bad but at a at an ockham's razor kind of viewpoint it's pretty it's pretty rock solid well i mean it pretty strong and favorite workers right so i mean you see see what happened on the gilded age you know when there there weren't any i don't think we should have like children and coal mines and stuff um but yeah i definitely agree that the um it's definitely like two sides of the left you know there's one side left that wants to control everyone's um you know actions and they're gonna get on twitter and try to get you fired because you said something about katlyn jenner or you know whatever but uh you know the kind of left that area i uh kind of look look up to and stuff is like the the abbey hoffman left you like to do crazy things and make people uncomfortable and you know hopefully we'll see some sort of return to that but you know it's all about you guys are talking about how liberal comes from liberty and stuff you know yeah the left doesn't orgy of ideas and arguments at all times when you lose that you're fucked and i think that's i'm sorry for the language but i think we got passed the uh language barrier on the scene before you got on the good good good on it all right so i do i do have one more trump related questions so we can circle back and do one more round of trump coverage now many have talked about russia's influence in the election the hacking of the democratic national committee the wiki league scandals and the potential for russia to gain by their closeness and perhaps even friendship with trump but let's shift russia to the side let's look at china does china gain from this election is this china's huge victory china is now in a position to lead the world forward on climate change trump is going to be very anti of the climate change regulations etc he's going to have a lot of that back we're going to have to actually rely on china to lead the world on what used to be the us's progressive issues it's china going to lead the world on trade is china going to lead the world on climate change is this china's victory and i'm going to give everybody a chance to talk to we just talk with start with lake though so china and russia and trump that general talk china and russia and trump i mean this is going to be interesting and yet there's a lot of information required about america about russia about china about individualism about collectivism about economic there's a lot of information that goes into this um what like let's let's let's talk about russia first russia survived the collapse the ussr russia has been through lots and lots and lots of stuff people don't like putt and i understand why people don't like putt but people that do like putt and i understand why they like him too russia is basically a huge infinite expansive land that can't even get the resources together to tie itself together and really be a cohesive state so what putt has done as he's been like we need to have the most banana republic liberal economic policies ever and you can all do that and then once like if there's a like a factory or a company at certain town that starts to really enslave the people and really like do bad stuff then uh you know putt and comes in and tells them hey you know unless you want to end up on the cage you'd be most want to list you got to you got to you got to operate differently i mean is that great no is that optimal though but do i understand why he does it and do i think that he's kind of good at it you know a little bit so in terms of how i think it's going to go between all these different countries it's it's a huge toss up and i think that everybody coming to agree on there needs to be a certain amount of important export relative to energy and other things based on the amount of technology coming out of these areas that's going to be the great equalizer the amount of technological value that has to come out of trade agreements will start to weigh heavier than it did in traditional trade agreements between these countries when it was kind of just like well this is going to be a bi-directional really hard raw you know intercourse section and this person's really going to be the loser i think that that will end up being seen less and less and less and people even in countries maybe that don't have all of the um free trade and political cloud to have their citizens really make a big stink that that will just be something that people can make online more and more and more so i think that the deregulatory nature of Trump's candidacy if it ends up being that in a techno age is going to be something that is very very very exciting to see i mean it may not go that way but if it does to see it techno economy it's deregulated in a way that's meaningful i think it's going to produce growth the likes of which it's going to be very hard even for a big coin to compete with. Very interesting points Blake um the china i do think that despite china's massive debt bubble and absolute overplaying of their hand uh in entering the industrial age so much later than the west will hurt the government there once again where i believe that we're seeing the beginnings of the crack ups of the 20th century nation state model which reached its peak in the 1970s i think that however china has made a lot of bets over the past 20 years that for example precious metals um many other industrial decisions many other decisions that they've made um infrastructure investment and just real bets like literally the pboc you know throwing money at contracts all over the world and also the citizenry buying up real estate and tangible assets in the west i think a lot of those bets are going to come up great uh for the chinese people i do think that the chinese government might not see some of the benefits but in the short term i think that definitely the chinese will be the winners uh and things won't even out for another 10 years or so so i think yes indeed china uh in the short term in the next few years well we'll come out of winner uh russia as well um i think in a similar way where the the the people will kind of benefit from a lot of the collapse in the west a lot of the wealth is going to suddenly shunt toward the east and i think they will benefit in the short term um long term i think i'm definitely bearish on governments in demartina i have a question but i'm gonna wait till after it ends um yeah when it comes to china they get a lot of things going on themselves you know they have some racial unrest there um you know there's a lot China's a lot bigger country than you know it looks on the map and i don't mean like physically it just mean like um you know and all the different uh ethnic groups and and regions and and how they can sometimes uh bump up against each other but you know if china wants to sort of take over some of our role over in the uh global ecosystem and sort of be the policeman of the world like we've been for the past uh 50 years or so you know i say let them um if they want to deal with those issues that we've been trying to take care of and bailing at then i say you know go ahead and uh i don't think they're going to find any easier than we found it but uh yeah if they're going to be the winner of this election i mean i think their economy is more dependent on their their their own policies like they have uh their central government will tell their governors that they have to make a certain amount of GDP or produce certain GDP every year and so that's led to things like ghost cities where they got these gigantic cities the size of Houston and no one's living in them uh so you know they have their own issues and i don't know how long they can survive with those issues but uh so i mean they i don't know i don't i don't think they care that much about our president as long as it's you know he doesn't rock the boat that much and we haven't seen what Trump's going to do yet i think it's a huge opportunity for china a huge victory but there is a chance remember Trump is this negotiator if he believes the Chinese have been controlling their currency which we know they have if he wants them to do less of that if he wants to equal out trade relations maybe he wants to protect the intellectual property of companies that are making stuff in china and then having it knocked off and stolen uh who knows where he's going to come down on this he is a a businessman he's seen as a protector of the corporate system and uh is he going to stand up against china that's a good question a good equivalency too i mean does a businessman mean the protector of the corporate and um god i hope not i mean it definitely might but um uh when gay was was talking especially about china he made some good points but he was talking about wind energy and various different types of energy because i think that even though different intellectual property patents are being sat on by little corporations intellectual property is not i mean that's like you know a rule like hey like i i made a rule for you and you can't play with those blocks but if i'm not watching for why you're gonna build with those blocks and you're gonna you know prosper with those blocks so do you think gay that on china might start to come out of the races with some specifically wind technology that's going to put the put the world on edge you think that that's maybe uh uh reaching too far into the what if bag i think maybe it's it's not reaching far enough into the what if bag um i think we're gonna see some technologies like i said some hidden science technologies leaking out of the um capsule that they've been hidden in and kept very very very far away from mainstream culture i think we're gonna see and you think that not eat not just the market has contributed these but there's also maybe even some other sources that have contributed to technologies that we have just not been able to yeah yeah i would describe that as the shadow government or d or maybe deep state i don't know which one it is i think it's deep state yes it's basically the you know all this what is the deep state well the deep state would be the um power brokers that are pulling the strings so as opposed to the shadow government which is uh which is like the CIA taking money and then being on the phone right deep state would be the the players that are kind of um i've heard of shadow but not deep state yeah shadow government would be the would be like CIA and and hidden aspects that are actually pulling government strings deep state would be um you know appointed people and people that are behind the scenes um that are actually doing the shunting of power and money here and there the people that that stay on between administrations too right there's that as well but yeah yeah exactly deep state would be ingrained bureaucrats as well so i mean i try to i try to be as abreast of this stuff as i can but i mean i have a family at this point like most of my days spent those like kids i mean this is i'm definitely not just asking for the audience i'm asking for myself as well yeah yeah i think deep state like like Ian pointed out is is less on the secret side and more just ingrained uh bureaucrac bureaucracy as opposed to the shadow government which is the uh secret side right but they want to keep clandestine um and so what i think is this hidden this hidden tech is going to come out like i mentioned before um these uh all the governments know about it and they've been trying to clamp down on it and because all of the more powerful technology gets the more powerful uh the more uh high technology individuals can get a hold of the more their power increases and the power of uh despotic nation states decreases so it's not in the interest of tyrannical institutions to allow individuality um uh you know empowering technology to get out but i think it's inevitable we're entering the age we're in the age of leaks we're gonna see that stuff so i think that um the these technological advances won't necessarily come out of china because it'll come out of wherever there will be um rediscoveries of the of you know in the mainstream um academia which has already been happening really since um 2011 or so and we're seeing now the basic science and the basic physics being questioned because you know they even even the mainstream science don't claim they know the grand unified theory field theory and now we're seeing the holographic principles being investigated and we're gonna start to see energy tech coming out from that and it's going from random places not from large nation states are there good places to research grand unified field theory tech because i mean for right now the the best place that i've heard of is uh there is 11-dimensional quantized space theory and it's not only mathematics no no no that's what you're describing uh that you're describing string theory and these are all the workarounds because of because of these uh the shadow i'm aware that they would be workarounds which is why i'm wondering where's the alternate viewpoint the alternate viewpoints will be found at like really you know uh ghetto uh sites on the internet that you know that are put together by lots of random people but um basically i think david wilcock personally is my is my rabbit hole guide um david wilcock talks a lot about um these technologies and and really citing a lot of genuine science um but much of it coming out of non-western sources so india and especially russia where in the nineties they opened up all this soviet research that's absolutely crushing and destroys the entire mainstream physics narrative and it's all from the fifties through the nineties and and later of course but much of it hasn't been translated kozy rev and many other russian researchers all rushing um all describing what they called um torsion fields which if you go on uikipedia they say it's pseudoscience but there's so there's reams of evidence for this stuff and it's essentially this idea of a consciousness field that is the same thing as time and gravity well it's very very interesting and that's the kind of stuff that you know if i if i was bored one day i wanted to do some uh our research that that like it'd be it'd be really fun to you know research or or value check or it's fun it's fun stuff you know even if you don't throw in with it yeah even if you don't throw in with it completely it's really fun to research and it's ets and all that stuff and so david willcock is a great author i recommend the source field investigations which is a great book he talked he calls it the source field with the uh guys in the russian um science called torsion fields it's you know it's literally collating vortexes um so very fun stuff highly entertaining david willcock and i recommend i think we're starting to run out of time so we're going to go to predictions or a story of the week blaker you're ready with a prediction or a story of the week or maybe just a reaction to trump i don't know what he got just i guess kev i guess my story of the week or whatever is that the the mainstream media told everybody we really afraid of trump but the mainstream media hasn't been doing people any you know favors recently and just don't go out and get really upset and destroy property or get arrested or get hurt that's not going to help anybody you know program something di y um come up with a really clever argument and then make it with a rational tenelopoints do that like that is the best way to uh respond to adversity don't drink don't you know take up heroin and do all kinds of stuff to try to uh kill the pain i mean do something about it if you think that you're right and that your arguments can stand the test of time and the test of um controversy get out there and do it and i think that's the best message that i can send to people that are really really upset about the election whether they're democrats or they're anarchists or they're you know whoever they might be uh you don't lose hope your life and your opinions are one of the most scarce things that have ever occurred don't throw that all in the trash because some um you know national figure uh did something you didn't like it's just it's not worth it at all Gabriel D Vaughn is this uh story of the week yep go ahead yeah um coming back to something i mentioned at the very beginning of the show my story of the week is uh last night i was hanging out with a good friend of mine old friend we talk about all sorts of stuff and we're you know pretty relatively rabbit hole certainly on the uh economic side and um he was describing how he's on facebook and watch i can't stand facebook i think it's a toxic i love twitter and i love to control my my uh information feed very carefully and i don't want to know the the thoughts of my loved ones day to day um and he was describing how an old group of friends that we have um who i would describe as primaire you might describe them as yuppies they've been yuppies since the 90s um they were all completely on board with the mainstream narrative about the election and are in absolute shock as the world they thought they knew the world they had been told was uh uh what you know existed collapses around their ears and uh that was actually um you know we're all in our own little bubble there in their Hillary bubble or the democratic bubble or whatever i'm in my um total rabbit hole tinfoil hat bubble and i think it was uh it really struck me like wow the level of ignorance in our society the lack of awareness that's so incredibly permeating and widespread around the world but more so in the USA um where this mainstream narrative is totally trusted in people watch and believe the television news um including people in my family but i just didn't quite it didn't hit me until i realized just the level of panic that he was describing in these friends on facebook and that i'm seeing now everybody on the chat saying oh my god my facebook feed everybody everybody i know that you know none of them like bitcoin or know any about it or whatever um everyone i know is completely losing their minds and um i think that's an amazing thing to see it's really important to realize that we're in this transition time like people uh on the chat once again we're saying you know Alex Jones is uh you know that this uh ashram for somebody was saying Alex Jones is actually you know mainstream and he's actually supported but nevertheless he was you know has this narrative that's popular enough to get he's becoming mainstream and the mainstream narrative the mainstream media are absolutely losing everything they just go onto the social media and start reading tweets out they don't have any scoop they don't have they're not doing any journalism so it's i just want that the story of the week is this election happened even traders and speculators were betting wrong which they should be total tinful outwears as far as i'm concerned and what what we're seeing is a massive shift the paranoid survive right we're seeing a massive shift in the united states consciousness just beginning with a really extreme shock of Brexit times a thousand Ian and D. Martino are you ready with the story of the week or prediction yeah i just want to start off by uh quoting the great hunter s tomson which is when the go and gets weird the weird turn pro this entire year has been very weird you know calves win mba finals cubs win the world series and now we have reality tv stars are president i think it's only going to get weirder as time goes on and we all better to buckle up and get ready for it people think um trump presidency is the weirdest thing that's going to happen in their lifetime are sadly mistaken uh this is only the very beginning of just things going absolute that should insane as this species that we are tries to deal with things like the internet and social media and twitter and instant communication and and so i mean of the of the of the norm and it's it's going to get very very weird so just prepare for that everyone and just try to be accepting of it it's good stuff in and do not stop it i just wanted to highlight a movement that i've heard about on facebook and twitter after the Brexit campaign and as a lot of you know Brexit was a lot of that was focused on anti-immigrant sentiment when people voted to have england leave the european union what they're really saying is they didn't want to be forced by the e-u to take a certain number of refugees uh so it was kind of an anti-immigrant movement what people started doing is they started wearing safety pins on their shirt just a normal cheap little safety pin and what you can do is you're basically saying it's not a political statement i'm not saying anti-trump what i'm saying is it's an anti-bigotry statement that you refuse for people of color or lgb qt uh people or muslims or whoever's being discriminated against in our society perhaps women uh because of the kind of the hysteria around trump you want to say hey i'm there for you i'll sit next to you i'll give you help if you're being chased uh so i think it's a nice thing to do a lot of people are wearing a safety pin now i saw patrick steward on twitter was promoting this idea and it's just a nice way of saying that i support your right to be your own person and i think it's a nice counter to the and i think they're very few i don't think there's a lot of them but to the trump people that are saying negative things to the people that are talking to people on streets and chasing them i think we need to as a group we need to say we're tolerant we're reasonable i think that's i think that's meaningless uh social signaling and it's going to totally collapse and backfire well i think it's worth a shot because i think if you can't try to do something nice if you can only do negative things like obviously these guys are out there doing negative things and i can't stop them in every incident i think this is it an attempt to do a positive thing wearing a bullshit thing isn't doing anything positive but actually i think that you're just falling into the negativity here of the only thing we can do are negative things if the only thing we can do are negative things then the only thing i can do is go out there and try to be there fight racism wherever it is and i can't be omnipresent so i'm wearing the same thing as i don't know the positive thing i think the you can't just say that symbolism doesn't matter i don't think that's true at all i think you have to do a positive thing simple time for symbolism has ended but i agree that kind that kind actions will speak very loud i agree with that but i don't think the signaling is going to work very well well the goal of signaling is like i'm kind if you need help i'm kind and i don't think that's a negative thing to say i don't think that's maybe yeah yeah i think i think again i think if we have this extreme negativity we have these people out there who are going to keep attacking people in their jobs they're going to keep attacking people because they're brown whatever their problem is i think the way to deal with that positive action if we don't say you know you got your swashdaka i've got another symbol for you Thomas Thomas don't go away to deal with that i'm like i'm like i'm i like to see. The way middle-ray is not triple parentheses or safety pinnets, it's a backhand people that are hysterical. All right the way the the way that the way to deal with that is with kind actions and those will speak loud on videos but surrounding your name with triple parentheses and see that the era of social signaling has already ended it takes action and i highly i highly agree with you that that is the important thing moving forward people Acting kind people stopping on this side of the highway and helping people people stopping other people from Committing violent acts that's gonna be big and so if you pass on a video of somebody shutting down a hater somebody Not shutting him down, but somebody acting with tolerance and peace and kindness towards somebody Or taking out a hater somebody taking a hater and just just caving his face I also think that we need to recognize that there are more good people than we think there are That the language is not made up if bad people You guys are only bad people are the loudest the bad green or yelling at the people in the hijabs the bad people are Signalling people out the good people need to say we're not gonna have that Yeah, I walk into a room and I see a dozen people with safety pins on it's not a big deal But I think to myself hey here's a crowd of people that aren't going to allow this and if you're if you're the person that's gonna Yellow to job person you look around you see all these people and maybe they have a little innocuous symbol Maybe it gives the thing two years of twist that person that that symbol that symbolism is is far too simple to twist and it does get Twisted in our society so the first time you see somebody with it with a safety pin beating up somebody who you know didn't want a 45-year-old That's also true for the Nazi symbol I could put on a swash to can go help homosexuals and I could go be kind to And it would be it would be flipping the symbols. I mean this That's not that's a false equivalence. I Degree I don't I think that's a false. I agree with a lot of the stuff I don't know if that's a really cool one So I think that's that everybody should have like New York values What are New York values if you're at the hot dog vendor and somebody cuts in front of somebody just because they're a woman or because they're black There's gonna be a problem with a large group of people that I'm like, yeah Don't give individuals a hard time just because you're a dick and I think that that's how everybody should act And I think that that's you know probably a lot closer to the way that society feels right now Then almost anything else. I mean if you go into New York You don't see somebody get cut off buying a hot dog because of stuff like that and if you do You generally see a lot of backlash rightfully so for people so I mean Maybe it's an issue, but I just I don't see it as big of an issue as other people do I think that they want to make it an issue almost because they're trying to make up for something All right, I've seen a good note to close on in the chat Alex says be excellent to each other and of course follow up to that is party on Party on and I believe we're Unfortunately we've run out of time so great for everyone for sticking in for this really long show I wanted to talk about a lot of things about Trump I want to get a lot of speculation out there. I wanted to get Ian's facts from his article out there Everyone can check that out at coinjournal.net Thanks Ian has really really hit the placement and done a lot of hard work. I met Ian quite a while ago in Washington He was the only journalist that gave a rat shit about Recording my speech about a Bitcoin and the impact on actual time itself relative to time preference and You could economic infrastructure and stuff like that So for him to have had the foresight to be there to wake up to get out of his bed For for nothing and record that so that everybody else could hear it I mean just there's no fucking way I can ever say enough thanks to Ian So just a goddamn champion of journalism the likes of which I can't compare anybody else to let's give it up for Ian Dean Martian All right, so thanks to Also thanks to tone tone had to take off earlier tone joined us all the way from Russia and as you guys know It's the middle of the night in Russia. So thanks for tone for staying up Thanks to everybody in the chat. We had a really good chat today We tried to bring a lot of your ideas into the show so that you feel representative and again Yeah, everyone has their own opinion on Trump. I just wanted to get them all out there We all shared our opinions and you know as you can see we're still friends. We're not gonna fight or anything So thanks to everybody we had about 63 people that stuck with us Please share the link subscribe Donate you can probably go to Ian's article. I bet he's got a Bitcoin address on there sent him a few bucks And that's about it. We'll be back next week everyone check out the world crypto network We've got the Bitcoin news show on Monday night. I think he's celebrating his first year anniversary So hopefully we have a lot of people there that should be a really big show. I think it's around eight o'clock in the evening Pacific time big news Monday night Um, that's about it. I think we're out of time. So until next time. I've all